from BBC, In Our Time
Toward a Theology of Enzymes:
God, Evolution, and Collaborative Design
I have a friend who is a biochemist and a Christian. She conducts research on a specific type of enzyme associated with hemophilia. At times, she finds herself torn between two perspectives. One is that the incredible and complex order of enzymes signifies a divine ordering principle at work in the universe. She speaks of a divine Architect. The other is that enzymes are the result of random mutations and natural selection in biochemical evolution. She calls this the no-Architect perspective.
She recognizes that there is a form of intelligence or rationality in the enzymatic reactions she studies; they operate according to recognizable principles. They appear to be 'designed' for such functions. However, she hesitates to discuss a cosmic designer due to her awareness of the diseases stemming from biochemical malfunctions. She is torn between the Architect and no-Architect point of view.
Perhaps process theology can help. I'll call it the Dual-Architect point of view, and suggest that their own joint activity is always in process. One Architect is God and the other is Evolution. They work together and nothing we see in the world can be attributed solely to one or the other. Moreover, they practice adaptive Architecture: that is, a form of architecture wherein architects offer a general framework or design guidelines, while the specifics of the design evolve during the building process. Builders add their input as they construct, resulting in a more organic, collaborative, and context-sensitive construction. Here the builders are the creative agents that they have partly produced by God and evolution: atoms, molecules, living cells, plants, animals, stars, planets, and galaxies. I say partly produced because, in their current existence, they never entirely "explained" by their origins. The designs of the future depend on their activities in the present, and those activities are not pre-programmed or pre-determined by the past.
Process theologians often speak of co-creativity as the heart of the divine-cosmos relationship. Building upon John Cobb's essay below, I suggest that co-creativity is co-design or co-architecture, and that the designed entities inherited from the past, with their amazing complexity, are part of an ongoing creative process. The universe itself is not simply architected, it is architecting. Enzymes are among its agents, co-designed in a process of theistic evolution and co-designing their futures. The co-designing can often yield results that are tremendously beautiful for plant and animal life: digestion, metabolism, various chemical cycles inside the cell, DNA replication. And sometimes, in their creativity, there are deleterious mutations leading to disease. No one is at fault; no one is entirely to blame; no one is in complete control. But so much of it is amazingly complex and breathtaking. Consider enzymes.
- Jay McDaniel
She recognizes that there is a form of intelligence or rationality in the enzymatic reactions she studies; they operate according to recognizable principles. They appear to be 'designed' for such functions. However, she hesitates to discuss a cosmic designer due to her awareness of the diseases stemming from biochemical malfunctions. She is torn between the Architect and no-Architect point of view.
Perhaps process theology can help. I'll call it the Dual-Architect point of view, and suggest that their own joint activity is always in process. One Architect is God and the other is Evolution. They work together and nothing we see in the world can be attributed solely to one or the other. Moreover, they practice adaptive Architecture: that is, a form of architecture wherein architects offer a general framework or design guidelines, while the specifics of the design evolve during the building process. Builders add their input as they construct, resulting in a more organic, collaborative, and context-sensitive construction. Here the builders are the creative agents that they have partly produced by God and evolution: atoms, molecules, living cells, plants, animals, stars, planets, and galaxies. I say partly produced because, in their current existence, they never entirely "explained" by their origins. The designs of the future depend on their activities in the present, and those activities are not pre-programmed or pre-determined by the past.
Process theologians often speak of co-creativity as the heart of the divine-cosmos relationship. Building upon John Cobb's essay below, I suggest that co-creativity is co-design or co-architecture, and that the designed entities inherited from the past, with their amazing complexity, are part of an ongoing creative process. The universe itself is not simply architected, it is architecting. Enzymes are among its agents, co-designed in a process of theistic evolution and co-designing their futures. The co-designing can often yield results that are tremendously beautiful for plant and animal life: digestion, metabolism, various chemical cycles inside the cell, DNA replication. And sometimes, in their creativity, there are deleterious mutations leading to disease. No one is at fault; no one is entirely to blame; no one is in complete control. But so much of it is amazingly complex and breathtaking. Consider enzymes.
- Jay McDaniel
Enzymes: A Scholarly Discussion
offered by In Our Time of BBC
Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss enzymes, the proteins that control the speed of chemical reactions in living organisms. Without enzymes, these reactions would take place too slowly to keep organisms alive: with their actions as catalysts, changes which might otherwise take millions of years can happen hundreds of times a second. Some enzymes break down large molecules into smaller ones, like the ones in human intestines, while others use small molecules to build up larger, complex ones, such as those that make DNA. Enzymes also help keep cell growth under control, by regulating the time for cells to live and their time to die, and provide a way for cells to communicate with each other. With Nigel Richards, Professor of Biological Chemistry at Cardiff University; Sarah Barry, Lecturer in Chemical Biology at King's College London; And Jim Naismith, Director of the Research Complex at Harwell, Bishop Wardlaw Professor of Chemical Biology at the University of St Andrews, Professor of Structural Biology at the University of Oxford. Producer: Simon Tillotson.
Intelligent Design in Process Perspective
John B. Cobb, Jr.
Intelligent Design: October 2005
Question: Does process theology support those who are promoting “Intelligent Design” as explanatory of evolution?
Publication Month: October 2005
Dr. Cobb’s Response
A simple answer is possible. No. From the point of view of process theology “intelligent design” is not a scientific theory and should not be presented as an alternative to the dominant theory of evolution. I say this first to avoid confusion about my position, because much of what I will say as I continue expresses a good deal of sympathy for this idea. My sympathy can be expressed by three basic points.
First, as a process theologian I do believe that divine intelligence affects the course of events generally, including biological evolution. This intelligence works purposefully and provides direction to the process. This is certainly close to the convictions of those who promote “intelligent design.”
Second, process theologians do not believe that the standard teaching of biological evolution in our schools is adequate. The full reality of evolution is not explained by the mechanisms proposed in most biology textbooks. Revision is needed.
Third, this revision should avoid the reductionistic character of current evolutionary theory in such a way as to overcome its systematic closure against the involvement of God in the process.
These points of agreement or overlap with advocates of intelligent design sharpen the question why I oppose its teaching in the public schools. At the political level I do so because we have decided as a society not to promote any particular form of philosophical or theological thought in our schools. The phrase, intelligent design, implies almost necessarily a supernatural religious view, and most of those who promote it favor that kind of thinking. The teaching of science in public schools needs to stay closer to the empirical evidence and testable theories. I would take this position even if I agreed fully with the theory of intelligent design.
Actually, the same need to avoid ideological teaching in the public schools underlies my objection to the currently dominant form of evolutionary theory. In this theory the ideological element of modern science comes strongly and destructively to expression. Modern science early allied itself with a reductionist, materialist, mechanist model of the world. There is no scientific proof of the truth or adequacy of this model, and it is this model that process philosophy challenges. The currently dominant theory of evolution highlights the implications of this model because it so clearly implies that we human beings are a part of this world machine. This ideology should not be taught in public schools any more than intelligent design. Unfortunately, it is now implicitly taught with the authority of science.
Accordingly, as a process theologian I am quite sympathetic with conservatives who want alternative theories taught. “Creationism,” as such an alternative, failed to deal adequately with overwhelming bodies of empirical evidence. The theory of intelligent design is not so easily dismissed. In my opinion, its supporters do point to data that can more easily be understood on the assumption that there is a divine influence than on the assumption that the presently dominant model is adequate. Nevertheless, proponents of intelligent design move too quickly to a kind of explanation that falls outside the boundaries of science.
Further, as a process theologian, I do not agree with the theory of intelligent design. This theoretical level of the question may be of greater interest here than the political one. How does the view of process theologians that divine intelligence is at work in the world relate to the theory of intelligent design?
On the whole, the advocates of intelligent design accept the mechanistic view of the natural world. This leads to the position, long held by scientists and theologians alike, that God has imposed laws on nature. These laws express God’s design for the world. The God who imposes these laws can also impose more particular patterns as needed.
Process theology need not wholly reject the notion of imposed law. Whitehead asserts that there has been and can be only one divine act that is unaffected by creaturely acts. This is the basic ordering of the eternal objects, the realm of possibility. God has imposed limitations on what will ever be actually possible in the universe. Today scientists talk about the physical “constants” and point out that if they were different, life could not have arisen in the universe. The ordering of possibility is the deepest ground of the order that gives rise to the notion of the laws of nature. It may channel developments in certain directions instead of others that in purely abstract consideration are equally possible. The ordering of possibility certainly expresses intelligence.
For Whitehead and those of us who follow him, the order of possibility works internally to every actuality. The world is not made up of bits of matter that are set in motion along predetermined routes from without. The world is made up of partly self-determining events, each of which decides among those options that are made possible by the divine ordering of possibility given the actual world in that moment.
The word “design” is misleading in this context. It suggests an imposed outcome rather than one that is the joint result of the primordial divine decision and many creaturely ones. Within the limitations imposed by God’s decision there are numerous genuinely possible directions for the course of events to follow. Evolution need not have produced human beings. Nevertheless, the basic order of things is such that this specific outcome was possible and that there is a general tendency to achieve organisms capable of greater intensity and complexity of experience.
I am not advocating that the process view of God’s role in evolution be taught in public schools. What I do advocate is that there be recognition of the diverse elements contributory to evolution. Today the focus is almost entirely on random genetic changes, with the rare beneficial ones selected by environmental factors. But there are many indications that the activities of organisms also play a large role in evolution. This is true from the cell through human beings. It is hard not to suppose that the preference of so many biologists for explanation in terms of random mutations rather than the choices of individual organisms is ideological rather than scientific in any idealized or normative sense.
From the point of view intelligent design a change in the way evolution is interpreted scientifically might not make much difference. From the point of view of process theology it would make a great difference. Current teaching of evolution implies ultimately that human beings are nothing but matter in motion. Human purpose and intelligence is basically an illusion, simply a by-product of mechanical forces with no causal influence in the world. If, in contrast, it were recognized that every action of every entity has some effect, however trivial, on the evolutionary process, the implication would be entirely different. At the human level, the effect on the evolutionary process is far from trivial.
The vision would be that every event is extensively, even primarily, shaped by its past but, nevertheless, has some element, however slight, of self-determination. This becomes more significant in more complex creatures. This self-determination is selection among those possibilities provided for it by God’s ordering. Creaturely purpose and divine purpose appear together in this vision.
Where to draw the line in terms of what is taught in school is harder to decide from the process perspective. I believe, however, that the scientific evidence indicates that creaturely activity influences the evolutionary process and that this should be taught. I believe the evidence indicates that at advanced levels this creaturely activity is intelligently purposeful. I believe that scientists can acknowledge that even at lower levels it is sometimes functional and underdetermined by the circumstances, which means it is purpose-like.
I believe scientists can acknowledge that in the process of evolution there is the emergence of new properties that change the nature of the whole process. This means that the reductive commitments of the traditional model should be given up. Newly emergent properties act back upon the entities from which they have emerged. Most important, psychic or mental events not only are influenced by physical ones but also influence them. In my opinion if scientists examined the evidence without a strong ideological bias in favor of reduction, they could teach such causal relationships without abandoning the limits of science.
I realize, of course, that this would be an enormous change and one that would prove very difficult for many scientists to accept. Many would object as vehemently to such changes as to the teaching of intelligent design. However, I do not take the opposition of scientists as a reason for not pushing for such teaching in public schools. The issue in this case is that of empirical evidence. If the evidence does not support emergence and what can be called top-down causation, scientists should not teach these theories. But if the evidence does support them, and only deeply established ideology prevents it, we have the right to demand at least that alternative theories be taught.
I would like to imagine that some day it would be possible to talk about God in scientific discourse. That is not possible today. One may talk about the physical constants that make life possible, but one cannot describe these as a divine decision. I am hoping that we can move to a situation in which the actions of organisms, including intelligent and purposive actions, can be recognized as playing an important role in evolutionary development, but for the foreseeable future we cannot talk about any divine influence on those actions.
Part of the problem is that the word “God” is so bound up with supernaturalism that God’s role in natural processes cannot be considered without violating science. When considering what can be taught in public schools, this limitation must be respected. But either under this term or some other, perhaps “divine Spirit” we can in our own circles speak in ways that bring our knowledge of the natural world and our understanding of deity into mutually supportive and illuminating relationships. Perhaps some day that would allow us to educate our children in a more holistic or inclusive context.
- from Process and Faith, Ask Dr. Cobb
Question: Does process theology support those who are promoting “Intelligent Design” as explanatory of evolution?
Publication Month: October 2005
Dr. Cobb’s Response
A simple answer is possible. No. From the point of view of process theology “intelligent design” is not a scientific theory and should not be presented as an alternative to the dominant theory of evolution. I say this first to avoid confusion about my position, because much of what I will say as I continue expresses a good deal of sympathy for this idea. My sympathy can be expressed by three basic points.
First, as a process theologian I do believe that divine intelligence affects the course of events generally, including biological evolution. This intelligence works purposefully and provides direction to the process. This is certainly close to the convictions of those who promote “intelligent design.”
Second, process theologians do not believe that the standard teaching of biological evolution in our schools is adequate. The full reality of evolution is not explained by the mechanisms proposed in most biology textbooks. Revision is needed.
Third, this revision should avoid the reductionistic character of current evolutionary theory in such a way as to overcome its systematic closure against the involvement of God in the process.
These points of agreement or overlap with advocates of intelligent design sharpen the question why I oppose its teaching in the public schools. At the political level I do so because we have decided as a society not to promote any particular form of philosophical or theological thought in our schools. The phrase, intelligent design, implies almost necessarily a supernatural religious view, and most of those who promote it favor that kind of thinking. The teaching of science in public schools needs to stay closer to the empirical evidence and testable theories. I would take this position even if I agreed fully with the theory of intelligent design.
Actually, the same need to avoid ideological teaching in the public schools underlies my objection to the currently dominant form of evolutionary theory. In this theory the ideological element of modern science comes strongly and destructively to expression. Modern science early allied itself with a reductionist, materialist, mechanist model of the world. There is no scientific proof of the truth or adequacy of this model, and it is this model that process philosophy challenges. The currently dominant theory of evolution highlights the implications of this model because it so clearly implies that we human beings are a part of this world machine. This ideology should not be taught in public schools any more than intelligent design. Unfortunately, it is now implicitly taught with the authority of science.
Accordingly, as a process theologian I am quite sympathetic with conservatives who want alternative theories taught. “Creationism,” as such an alternative, failed to deal adequately with overwhelming bodies of empirical evidence. The theory of intelligent design is not so easily dismissed. In my opinion, its supporters do point to data that can more easily be understood on the assumption that there is a divine influence than on the assumption that the presently dominant model is adequate. Nevertheless, proponents of intelligent design move too quickly to a kind of explanation that falls outside the boundaries of science.
Further, as a process theologian, I do not agree with the theory of intelligent design. This theoretical level of the question may be of greater interest here than the political one. How does the view of process theologians that divine intelligence is at work in the world relate to the theory of intelligent design?
On the whole, the advocates of intelligent design accept the mechanistic view of the natural world. This leads to the position, long held by scientists and theologians alike, that God has imposed laws on nature. These laws express God’s design for the world. The God who imposes these laws can also impose more particular patterns as needed.
Process theology need not wholly reject the notion of imposed law. Whitehead asserts that there has been and can be only one divine act that is unaffected by creaturely acts. This is the basic ordering of the eternal objects, the realm of possibility. God has imposed limitations on what will ever be actually possible in the universe. Today scientists talk about the physical “constants” and point out that if they were different, life could not have arisen in the universe. The ordering of possibility is the deepest ground of the order that gives rise to the notion of the laws of nature. It may channel developments in certain directions instead of others that in purely abstract consideration are equally possible. The ordering of possibility certainly expresses intelligence.
For Whitehead and those of us who follow him, the order of possibility works internally to every actuality. The world is not made up of bits of matter that are set in motion along predetermined routes from without. The world is made up of partly self-determining events, each of which decides among those options that are made possible by the divine ordering of possibility given the actual world in that moment.
The word “design” is misleading in this context. It suggests an imposed outcome rather than one that is the joint result of the primordial divine decision and many creaturely ones. Within the limitations imposed by God’s decision there are numerous genuinely possible directions for the course of events to follow. Evolution need not have produced human beings. Nevertheless, the basic order of things is such that this specific outcome was possible and that there is a general tendency to achieve organisms capable of greater intensity and complexity of experience.
I am not advocating that the process view of God’s role in evolution be taught in public schools. What I do advocate is that there be recognition of the diverse elements contributory to evolution. Today the focus is almost entirely on random genetic changes, with the rare beneficial ones selected by environmental factors. But there are many indications that the activities of organisms also play a large role in evolution. This is true from the cell through human beings. It is hard not to suppose that the preference of so many biologists for explanation in terms of random mutations rather than the choices of individual organisms is ideological rather than scientific in any idealized or normative sense.
From the point of view intelligent design a change in the way evolution is interpreted scientifically might not make much difference. From the point of view of process theology it would make a great difference. Current teaching of evolution implies ultimately that human beings are nothing but matter in motion. Human purpose and intelligence is basically an illusion, simply a by-product of mechanical forces with no causal influence in the world. If, in contrast, it were recognized that every action of every entity has some effect, however trivial, on the evolutionary process, the implication would be entirely different. At the human level, the effect on the evolutionary process is far from trivial.
The vision would be that every event is extensively, even primarily, shaped by its past but, nevertheless, has some element, however slight, of self-determination. This becomes more significant in more complex creatures. This self-determination is selection among those possibilities provided for it by God’s ordering. Creaturely purpose and divine purpose appear together in this vision.
Where to draw the line in terms of what is taught in school is harder to decide from the process perspective. I believe, however, that the scientific evidence indicates that creaturely activity influences the evolutionary process and that this should be taught. I believe the evidence indicates that at advanced levels this creaturely activity is intelligently purposeful. I believe that scientists can acknowledge that even at lower levels it is sometimes functional and underdetermined by the circumstances, which means it is purpose-like.
I believe scientists can acknowledge that in the process of evolution there is the emergence of new properties that change the nature of the whole process. This means that the reductive commitments of the traditional model should be given up. Newly emergent properties act back upon the entities from which they have emerged. Most important, psychic or mental events not only are influenced by physical ones but also influence them. In my opinion if scientists examined the evidence without a strong ideological bias in favor of reduction, they could teach such causal relationships without abandoning the limits of science.
I realize, of course, that this would be an enormous change and one that would prove very difficult for many scientists to accept. Many would object as vehemently to such changes as to the teaching of intelligent design. However, I do not take the opposition of scientists as a reason for not pushing for such teaching in public schools. The issue in this case is that of empirical evidence. If the evidence does not support emergence and what can be called top-down causation, scientists should not teach these theories. But if the evidence does support them, and only deeply established ideology prevents it, we have the right to demand at least that alternative theories be taught.
I would like to imagine that some day it would be possible to talk about God in scientific discourse. That is not possible today. One may talk about the physical constants that make life possible, but one cannot describe these as a divine decision. I am hoping that we can move to a situation in which the actions of organisms, including intelligent and purposive actions, can be recognized as playing an important role in evolutionary development, but for the foreseeable future we cannot talk about any divine influence on those actions.
Part of the problem is that the word “God” is so bound up with supernaturalism that God’s role in natural processes cannot be considered without violating science. When considering what can be taught in public schools, this limitation must be respected. But either under this term or some other, perhaps “divine Spirit” we can in our own circles speak in ways that bring our knowledge of the natural world and our understanding of deity into mutually supportive and illuminating relationships. Perhaps some day that would allow us to educate our children in a more holistic or inclusive context.
- from Process and Faith, Ask Dr. Cobb
Of God and Enzymes
notes for a biochemical theology
1. Enzymes: The Vitality of Life The vitality of all living organisms on our planet is intricately tied to the role of enzymes: the proteins that control the speed of chemical reactions in living organisms. We cannot see them with our eyes, but scientists can observe them through multiple experimental techniques in laboratories and develop three-dimensional images of them.
2. Beauty and Complexity Enzymes are aesthetically and intellectually amazing: marvelous interplays of intricacy, complexity, and functionality. Biochemists study them, not only because they are relevant to biological life, but because they are interesting (and beautiful) in their own right.
3. Positive Roles Enzymes serve numerous pivotal roles in human life: they aid in digestion, drive energy production, bolster cellular repair and growth, enable neurotransmitter signaling, assist drug metabolism, and facilitate critical biochemical reactions such as glycolysis, DNA replication, protein synthesis, and the citric acid cycle—essentials for maintaining overall health.
4. Intelligent Design? For those with a religious perspective, it is natural to perceive enzymes as products of a higher design—outcomes or emanations of a wisdom surpassing human understanding. At the very least, enzymes emanate an air of intelligence, prompting contemplation about their origins.
5. Evolution or God Many scientists in Western (apart from Muslim scientists) will say that enzymes are the outcome of evolution: natural selection and random mutations. Many religiously minded people will say that they are the outcome of a divine architect.
6, Enzymes gone astray: One argument against the notion of a divine architect is the fact that enzymes can go astray: "Enzymes, vital for biological processes, can cause harm when their function is disrupted. Mutations in enzyme genes can lead to abnormal activity, increasing the risk of genetic disorders or cancer. Overactivity of enzymes due to mutations, signaling changes, or toxins can disrupt physiological processes. Enzyme deficiencies, where functional or lacking enzymes accumulate harmful substrates, result in conditions like Gaucher's or Tay-Sachs disease. Dysregulation caused by environmental factors can activate or inhibit enzymes inappropriately, affecting drug metabolism or causing toxic effects. Enzymes are implicated in various diseases, with abnormal activity contributing to cancer, clotting disorders, infections, and more. (Chat GPT)
7. Evolution and God A more comprehensive perspective can situate enzymes as the creative outcomes of two potent forces: evolution (encompassing natural selection and random mutations) and a divine Spirit permeating the universe. A combination of the two answers depends on a third idea: namely that nature itself is creative. This means that the very activity of enzymes in the present cannot be fully explained by appeals to origins. This view implies that enzymes harbor a sort of autopoietic creativity—self-organizing from disparate components. Enzymes include self-creativity.
8. Process Theology Process-relational theologians uphold two pivotal concepts: first, that evolution itself is an inherently creative process, defying strict mechanistic interpretation, and second, that all entities in the universe bear partial autopoietic traits. This means that the power of God in the universe must work with the creativity of the natural world and is limited by that creativity, however it unfolds.
9. Divine Power Reconceived The notion of divine power diverges from the image of a potter molding clay or an individual commanding their arm to rise. This power lacks manipulative or controlling tendencies, it resembles the influence of music on a listener—persuasive and evocative, rather than coercive. It is that of a divine attractant, working within all things.
10. Multiplicity of Evolutionary Agents Consequently, enzymes stand as evidence of "intelligent design," and the creative originators are twofold: the Spirit of God and Evolution. Evolution isn't a singular agent wielding autonomous power; rather, it is a diverse array of finite agents operating at multiple tiers—atomic, chemical, cellular, and multi-cellular. Moreover, it doesn't follow a mechanistic script; the agents within evolution have their autopoietic (self-organizing) creativity, distinct from divine influence. This creativity isn't inherently characterized as good or evil; rather, it is the ongoing production of ordered forms of novelty and novel forms of order, Enzymes are among those forms.
11. The Role of the Divine Spirit Similarly, the Spirit of God defies mechanistic categorization; it possesses intrinsic creativity. It functions as an inherent allure within the universe, guiding the emergence of ordered forms of novelty and novel forms of order. Its primary power is through the pull of possibilities, which may or may not be actualized, not the push of prior events.
12. All Things are in Process Enzymes can't be confined to the category of mere "things"; they embody dynamic processes and activities. The existence of none of these agents occurs in isolation; they are interconnected, and their presence relies on mutual interdependence.
13. Rethinking Design The word "design" can sometimes imply an intentional act of envisioning an outcome of creativity, such that the outcome is fully conceived in advance. In architecture, however, a different kind of design is envisioned called adaptive architecture. Adaptive architecture refers to a design approach that is flexible and responsive to changing conditions, both in terms of the environment and the needs of the occupants. Architects provide a general framework or design guidelines, but the specifics of the design might evolve as the building process unfolds. This allows for a more organic, collaborative, and context-sensitive construction.
14. God as an adaptive Architect Process-relational theology offers the image of God as an adaptive architect in a creatively evolving universe, where all entities have creativity of their own.
15. The Illusion of "things" In process theology all "things" are verbs, not nouns, or better, gerunds: verbs that function as things. Autopoiesis (self-organization) is itself an activity: that of self-organizing. This activity is its verbal or processive nature.
16. The Architect is not a "thing." God is not akin to the subject of a grammatical sentence, to which predicates can be added or subtracted, while the subject remains the same. Nor is God a self-enclosed entity cut off from the world by the boundaries of divine transcendence. God is the sacred whole of the universe, The alluring activity of the sacred whole is not unlike that of a living cell in relation to its enzymatic dynamics. The cell influences the dynamics but does not completely control them, and they influence the cell, too. So it is with God and the universe.
17. The Architect as attractant. The power of this whole is attractive not coercive. In chemistry, an attractant is a substance that has the ability to attract or draw other substances towards it. It can influence the movement, behavior, or interactions of molecules, particles, or organisms by creating a positive environment evoking a specific reaction. In biology, attractants are often substances that organisms are naturally drawn to, like certain scents that attract insects for pollination. In physics, attractants can refer to forces that pull particles or objects towards each other, such as gravitational or electromagnetic forces. God does not create by force but by attraction.
16. The Love of the Sacred Whole In process theology the sacred whole is more than a lure within the cosmos. The whole is also an empathic receptacle for everything that happens. No moment, no atom, no molecule, no enzyme, no animal, no plant, no person, no star, no galaxy is left behind.
2. Beauty and Complexity Enzymes are aesthetically and intellectually amazing: marvelous interplays of intricacy, complexity, and functionality. Biochemists study them, not only because they are relevant to biological life, but because they are interesting (and beautiful) in their own right.
3. Positive Roles Enzymes serve numerous pivotal roles in human life: they aid in digestion, drive energy production, bolster cellular repair and growth, enable neurotransmitter signaling, assist drug metabolism, and facilitate critical biochemical reactions such as glycolysis, DNA replication, protein synthesis, and the citric acid cycle—essentials for maintaining overall health.
4. Intelligent Design? For those with a religious perspective, it is natural to perceive enzymes as products of a higher design—outcomes or emanations of a wisdom surpassing human understanding. At the very least, enzymes emanate an air of intelligence, prompting contemplation about their origins.
5. Evolution or God Many scientists in Western (apart from Muslim scientists) will say that enzymes are the outcome of evolution: natural selection and random mutations. Many religiously minded people will say that they are the outcome of a divine architect.
6, Enzymes gone astray: One argument against the notion of a divine architect is the fact that enzymes can go astray: "Enzymes, vital for biological processes, can cause harm when their function is disrupted. Mutations in enzyme genes can lead to abnormal activity, increasing the risk of genetic disorders or cancer. Overactivity of enzymes due to mutations, signaling changes, or toxins can disrupt physiological processes. Enzyme deficiencies, where functional or lacking enzymes accumulate harmful substrates, result in conditions like Gaucher's or Tay-Sachs disease. Dysregulation caused by environmental factors can activate or inhibit enzymes inappropriately, affecting drug metabolism or causing toxic effects. Enzymes are implicated in various diseases, with abnormal activity contributing to cancer, clotting disorders, infections, and more. (Chat GPT)
7. Evolution and God A more comprehensive perspective can situate enzymes as the creative outcomes of two potent forces: evolution (encompassing natural selection and random mutations) and a divine Spirit permeating the universe. A combination of the two answers depends on a third idea: namely that nature itself is creative. This means that the very activity of enzymes in the present cannot be fully explained by appeals to origins. This view implies that enzymes harbor a sort of autopoietic creativity—self-organizing from disparate components. Enzymes include self-creativity.
8. Process Theology Process-relational theologians uphold two pivotal concepts: first, that evolution itself is an inherently creative process, defying strict mechanistic interpretation, and second, that all entities in the universe bear partial autopoietic traits. This means that the power of God in the universe must work with the creativity of the natural world and is limited by that creativity, however it unfolds.
9. Divine Power Reconceived The notion of divine power diverges from the image of a potter molding clay or an individual commanding their arm to rise. This power lacks manipulative or controlling tendencies, it resembles the influence of music on a listener—persuasive and evocative, rather than coercive. It is that of a divine attractant, working within all things.
10. Multiplicity of Evolutionary Agents Consequently, enzymes stand as evidence of "intelligent design," and the creative originators are twofold: the Spirit of God and Evolution. Evolution isn't a singular agent wielding autonomous power; rather, it is a diverse array of finite agents operating at multiple tiers—atomic, chemical, cellular, and multi-cellular. Moreover, it doesn't follow a mechanistic script; the agents within evolution have their autopoietic (self-organizing) creativity, distinct from divine influence. This creativity isn't inherently characterized as good or evil; rather, it is the ongoing production of ordered forms of novelty and novel forms of order, Enzymes are among those forms.
11. The Role of the Divine Spirit Similarly, the Spirit of God defies mechanistic categorization; it possesses intrinsic creativity. It functions as an inherent allure within the universe, guiding the emergence of ordered forms of novelty and novel forms of order. Its primary power is through the pull of possibilities, which may or may not be actualized, not the push of prior events.
12. All Things are in Process Enzymes can't be confined to the category of mere "things"; they embody dynamic processes and activities. The existence of none of these agents occurs in isolation; they are interconnected, and their presence relies on mutual interdependence.
13. Rethinking Design The word "design" can sometimes imply an intentional act of envisioning an outcome of creativity, such that the outcome is fully conceived in advance. In architecture, however, a different kind of design is envisioned called adaptive architecture. Adaptive architecture refers to a design approach that is flexible and responsive to changing conditions, both in terms of the environment and the needs of the occupants. Architects provide a general framework or design guidelines, but the specifics of the design might evolve as the building process unfolds. This allows for a more organic, collaborative, and context-sensitive construction.
14. God as an adaptive Architect Process-relational theology offers the image of God as an adaptive architect in a creatively evolving universe, where all entities have creativity of their own.
15. The Illusion of "things" In process theology all "things" are verbs, not nouns, or better, gerunds: verbs that function as things. Autopoiesis (self-organization) is itself an activity: that of self-organizing. This activity is its verbal or processive nature.
16. The Architect is not a "thing." God is not akin to the subject of a grammatical sentence, to which predicates can be added or subtracted, while the subject remains the same. Nor is God a self-enclosed entity cut off from the world by the boundaries of divine transcendence. God is the sacred whole of the universe, The alluring activity of the sacred whole is not unlike that of a living cell in relation to its enzymatic dynamics. The cell influences the dynamics but does not completely control them, and they influence the cell, too. So it is with God and the universe.
17. The Architect as attractant. The power of this whole is attractive not coercive. In chemistry, an attractant is a substance that has the ability to attract or draw other substances towards it. It can influence the movement, behavior, or interactions of molecules, particles, or organisms by creating a positive environment evoking a specific reaction. In biology, attractants are often substances that organisms are naturally drawn to, like certain scents that attract insects for pollination. In physics, attractants can refer to forces that pull particles or objects towards each other, such as gravitational or electromagnetic forces. God does not create by force but by attraction.
16. The Love of the Sacred Whole In process theology the sacred whole is more than a lure within the cosmos. The whole is also an empathic receptacle for everything that happens. No moment, no atom, no molecule, no enzyme, no animal, no plant, no person, no star, no galaxy is left behind.
What are they? What do they do?
Forgot what you once learned about enzymes, or never learned much in the first place? Click here for a simple, "bitesize" introduction to Enzymes offered by BBC. Here's an excerpt plus two images, click on the link for more.
Most of the food we eat is complex carbohydrates, proteins and lipids. These must be broken down to be absorbed into the body...The chemical reactions required to break them down would be too slow without enzymes...Enzymes are biological catalysts– they speed up chemical reactions...Enzymes are required for most of the chemical reactions that occur in organisms. These reactions occur in the breakdown of chemical molecules, which we see in the digestive system...Enzymes are also involved in the building up of chemical molecules elsewhere in the body...Enzymes are proteins that have a complex 3D shape. Each enzyme has a region called an active site...The substrate – the molecule or molecules taking part in the chemical reaction – fits into the active site. Once bound to the active site, the chemical reaction takes place .
From BBC
|
From BBC
|
For Further Study
LINKS AND FURTHER READING
Enzymes – BBC Bitesize
Enzymes – Chemguide
Enzymes – Encyclopaedia Britannica
Introducing Metabolism – BBC Bitesize
Proteolytic enzymes, past and future – Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Ancient enzyme resurrected from the ancestor of all bacteria – New Scientist
Enzymes – Wikipedia
READING LIST:
Jeremy M. Berg, John L. Tymoczko and Lubert Stryer, Biochemistry (W. H. Freeman, 2002)
T. D. H. Bugg, An Introduction to Enzyme and Coenzyme Chemistry (Wiley-Blackwell, 2004)
Jonathan Clark, Understanding the Structure and Function of Enzymes (ebook)
David Dressler and Huntington Potter, Discovering Enzymes (Scientific American Library, 1991)
Brian B. Jacques, Amino Acids & Enzymes: What Are They, Why Do You Need Them (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2014)
Steven Rose, The Chemistry of Life (Penguin, 1999)
Enzymes – BBC Bitesize
Enzymes – Chemguide
Enzymes – Encyclopaedia Britannica
Introducing Metabolism – BBC Bitesize
Proteolytic enzymes, past and future – Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Ancient enzyme resurrected from the ancestor of all bacteria – New Scientist
Enzymes – Wikipedia
READING LIST:
Jeremy M. Berg, John L. Tymoczko and Lubert Stryer, Biochemistry (W. H. Freeman, 2002)
T. D. H. Bugg, An Introduction to Enzyme and Coenzyme Chemistry (Wiley-Blackwell, 2004)
Jonathan Clark, Understanding the Structure and Function of Enzymes (ebook)
David Dressler and Huntington Potter, Discovering Enzymes (Scientific American Library, 1991)
Brian B. Jacques, Amino Acids & Enzymes: What Are They, Why Do You Need Them (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2014)
Steven Rose, The Chemistry of Life (Penguin, 1999)