Aron Katsenelinboigen


                                                                              Chapter 1



We could look at the creation of the universe as a whole, and also at the creation of its parts. The speed at which changes occur could be different in different parts of the universe. This allows us to interpret some parts of the universe as stable, relative to changes in other parts of the universe that are happening more quickly.

From this point of view, the changes in the inorganic, organic, and social systems are deeply distinguished. For us, the physical world, and especially the macro world, is the most unchangeable field, and the social field the most dynamic, while the biological fields lie between these two fields. Allow me to stress that creation is going in all parts of the universe. The continual development of the physical universe is perhaps best emphasized by the famous physicist Richard Feynman. In his book (1965) he says,

 The Universe is expanding with time and that means that the gravitational constant is changing with time, and although that is a possibility, there is no evidence to indicate that it is a fact. (p. 30).

In fact, the Big Bang theory, on the macro level, and different concepts of changes, on the micro level, are working to confirm the creative nature of the inorganic matter of the universe.

The concept that minerals undergo development – and even transformation into life – has been worked on by a group of scholars from Jerusalem University.

                              A metamorphic rock


Fully-realized, this concept could serve as an example of the evolution of the inorganic world. Isaac Lapidus (5736), one the members of the group, described the concept in the following way:

The earth surface (an also the planets, meteorites, the cosmic dust, etc,) are combined from strata that include different minerals. Even the simplest among them contain in structure many elements – silicon, oxygen, aluminum, magnesium, iron, and so on. The most widespread croup of minerals is aluminosilicates that contain magnesium, iron, water, and such. This kind of additions is usually presented in the mineral’s structures as ions, i.e., as charged particles. In these complex natural like polymeric compounds the consequence of structural ions is also possible to consider as a text and search by different analytical methods that nearest and remote order in the real structure of the minerals. At the present day a large set of scientific materials is collected in this field. It was quite natural to raise a question concerning the mineral’s cod and the author of this article did it on the end of the seventies. It is evident that in the beginning of the formation of live on the planet existed a certain succession that protracted from processes of earth’s formation, that shaped its geochemical image with a certain structure of minerals (and their real structure!), till the simplest living beings that formed the initial biosphere. In the formation of primitive living beings some minerals could usefully play the role of concentrators of amino acids. As early as in the end of 60-ies the scholars came to a conclusion that for different reasons the best candidates for this role are stratiform aluminosilicates – clayey minerals. The elaboration of their structure and qualities have shown that different on the their structure clay’s minerals enough easy absorb different substances originally changing at the same time the internal structure and gaining new qualities. Beside this it was recognized that clays really could concentrate different kind of organic compounds, and in particular amino acids, and after a complicated process to catalyze on its surface the formation of proteins-ferments. (p.6)[5]


The creative nature of the organic world has already been well described by Henri Bergson (1944). The creative nature of the social world is self-evident.

If we consider the universe to be a creative entity in itself, then the creation of the universe is a continuous process. The so-called Gaia hypothesis offered by James Lovelock (2000) is one manifestation of this global vision of a creative universe that involves performance and interaction in the inorganic and organic worlds.

Meanwhile, the global process of the creation of the universe as it appears in the Torah could be artificially divided into two processes based upon the performance of this creative process during the formation of basic structures, including human beings, and the performance of this creative process after the appearance of human beings. Both of these processes are presented in the Torah. Before the analysis of each of these processes, I would like to make some general comments concerning the two versions of the creation of the world.



Soon I will make some general comments about the two versions of the creation of the universe that are presented in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of Genesis but first I will make some notes concerning the first three verses of Chapter 2 of Genesis:

And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it He rested from all his work which God in creating and made.

There is a widespread view that these first three verses of the Chapter 2 actually belong at the end of Chapter 1. Nathan Aviezer (1990) makes the following comments:


Since the Sabbath marks the completion of the biblical account of the creation, one would expect these verses to be placed in the end of the first chapter. The interesting explanation is that these three verses were placed at the end of the first chapter—exactly where they belong—in the Jewish division of the Book of Genesis into chapters (see, for example, the Koren edition). The Catholic Vulgate, however, placed these three verses in the second chapter, and the chapter division of the Bible as found in the Vulgate has long been in virtually universal use; it is found in almost all present-day Hebrew texts and, of course, in English translations of the Bible, both Jewish and Christian. (p.125)[6]


Certainly, there are some arguments in favor of the preservation of these three verses in Chapter 2, and one of the main arguments is expressed by Daniel Fuller (1992):

Because it would seem, at first sight, that the high point of creation conies with the creation of the first man and woman. God's words "and it was very good" (1:31), when heretofore it was simply said, "God saw that it was good," imply that some sort of climax has been reached. (p.106)

The major parts of the second version of the creation of the universe include a description of the creation of different trees (Genesis 2:9), the creation of living beings (Genesis 2:19-20), the area for the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:8, 10-14), the creation of man and woman (Genesis 2: 7, 21-25), and the prohibition not to touch the Tree of Knowledge (Genesis 2:16-17). In other words, the major text of the second chapter could be treated as methods of creation of “anatomical objects,” specifically Man and Woman, and their relationships with each other and God.

I intentionally include in the 18 questions the question “9) Why does the Torah contain two versions of the creation of the Universe”? because I believe I have something to contribute. There is a controversy over the interpretation of the relations between Chapter 1 and the major parts of the Chapter 2. As Leon Kass (2003) mentioned,

 [W]e may be able to counteract two opposing but equally misleading biases about this story: the prejudice of some pious readers and the prejudice of many biblical scholars. The pious readers, believing that the text cannot contain contradictions, ignore the major disjunctions between the two creation stories; they tend to treat the second story as the fuller, more detailed account of the creation of man (and woman) that the first story simply reported. On the other side, the scholars, though keenly aware of the differences in the two stories, have little interest in relating their content and meaning; practitioners of source criticism, they focus on the differences to prove that the two accounts came from different sources—the so-called P (Priestly) and J (Yahwistic) documents—that were subsequently redacted or compiled. (p. 55) [7]

  I think that the major part of Chapter 2 is primarily a modified remedy of old versions of the creation of the universe. The collection of the myths of creation in different cultures that has been prepared by Mircea Eliade (1974), along with other sources, helps to confirm this hypothesis. One may see from the set of myths in Eliade's collection that the majority of the myths belonging to primitive cultures combine relatively poorly developed successions of events with details concerning the involvement of means that have been used by the creators. In contrast to this, the first version of creation in Genesis presents a protracted, well-organized succession of events and avoids any hints as to the means of creation.

To show the similarities between the second version of creation in Genesis and the myths of creation in primitive cultures, I provide the following text from parts of the second chapter of Genesis that deals with methods of creation and the myth of creation in a primitive culture:

No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground; but there went up a mist from the earth, and wa­tered the whole face of the ground. Then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a gar­den eastward, in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the Tree of Life also in the midst of the garden, and the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads. (Genesis 2:5-10)  

And the Lord God said:

          It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.’ (Genesis 2:18)

And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the place with flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man. (Genesis 2:21-22)


What follows is a text that describes the belief of the Uitoto of Colombia, South America.  It was taken by Mircea Eliade (1974) from the book by Paul Rodin.

In the beginning there was nothing but mere appearance, nothing really existed. It was a phantasm, an illusion that our father touched; something mysterious it was that he grasped. Nothing existed. Through the agency of a dream our father, He‑who‑is‑appearance‑only, Nainema, pressed the phantasm to his breast and then was sunk in thought. Not even a tree existed that might have supported this phantasm and only through his breath did Nainema hold this illusion attached to the thread of a dream. He tried to discover what was at the bottom of it, but he found nothing. `I have attached that which was nonexistent,' he said. There was nothing. Then our father tried again and investigated the bottom of this something and his fingers sought the empty phantasm. He tied the emptiness to the dream‑thread and pressed the magical glue‑substance upon it. Thus by means of his dream did he hold it like the fluff of raw cotton. He seized the bottom of the phantasm and stamped upon it repeatedly, allowing himself finally to rest upon the earth of which he had dreamt. The earth‑phantasm was now his. Then he spat out saliva repeatedly so that the forests might arise. He lay upon the earth and set the covering of heaven above it. He drew from the earth the blue and white heavens and placed them above. (Eliade, p.85)

Another example that is relevant to the subject under discussion is taken from the book by Nahum Sarna (1966):

Now if we note that the word here translated "dust" is used quite often in biblical Hebrew as a synonym for clay, we may recognize at once a theme frequently encountered in Scripture. Here, again, we are confronted with a familiar motif, the shaping of man out of clay. In Enuma Elish man is created from the blood of the rebellious Kingu. But in the Epic of Gilgamesh of which we shall learn more in the next chapter, the goddess Aruru "washed her hands, nipped off clay" and fashioned it into Enkidu. An Old Babylonian myth, paralleled in an Assyrian version, explicitly describes the creation of the first men from clay. That this motif is of very great antiquity may be shown by its presence in a Sumerian composition of the third millennium B.C.E. Conforming to the same conceptual pattern are the Egyptian paintings which depict the god Khnum sitting upon his throne before a potter's wheel busily fashioning men. (p. 14)

There is a second relevant example from the book by Nahum Sarna (p.6). Marduk, the chief god of Babylon, created Man upon the request of other gods that they be relieved of menial labor. In the second version of creation in Genesis Adam, the first man, also does menial labor, but for God.

Certainly, in spite of the similarities between the second biblical version of creation and the myths of primitive cultures, the biblical version has some essential peculiarities. The biblical vision is unique and original in comparison to other religions in surrounding countries.[8] These peculiarities have been analyzed in several books, in particular in the book by Nahum Sarna (pp.14-16). Here I will quote one of these peculiarities:

The biblical Creation account is non-political and non-cultic. This playing of the cosmological theme in a relatively minor key in biblical literature points up other basic distinctions between Genesis and Enuma Elish. The former has no political role. It contains no allusion to the people of Israel, Jerusalem or the Temple. It does not seek to validate national ideals or institutions. Moreover, it fulfills no cultic function. The inextricable tie between myth and ritual, the mimetic enactment of the cosmogony in the form of ritual drama, which is an essential characteristic of the pagan religions, finds no counterpart in the Israelite cult. In this respect too, the Genesis story represents a complete break with Near Eastern tradition. (Sarna, p.9)

Below I will discuss the creation of the world on the basis of the first Chapter of Genesis.


There are two major approaches to the development of the world. One of them could be called naturalist (evolutionist). It is expressed in particular by Darwinists and atheistic cosmologists, and it is the scholarly approach. The other approach to the development of the world could be called creationism. Moreland & Reynolds (1999) distinguish three major branches of creationism: young earth creationism, progressive creationism (old earth creationism) and the fully gifted creation (theistic evolution.)

The first two branches of creationism are distinguished by the length of the duration of time in which the world was created, namely – fairly recently, as in biblical times, measured in several thousands years, and over a long period of time, measured even in billions of years. Theistic evolution is distinguished by its focus on God’s intervention in the process of the development of the world. In turn, as Howard Van Till mentions (in Moreland & Reynolds, 1999), theistic evolution characterizes God's involvement in the process of creation as happening either via miraculous intervention or

God’s giving of being to a creation that is richly gifted with all of the capabilities to organize and transform itself into new forms necessary to make possible the continuous evolutionary development envisioned by the majority of natural scientists today (p.162).[9]

The major limitation of the first two versions of creationism is the dogma of fixity and the complete constancy of species mentioned in the Torah.[10] But as I will soon show, some biblical scholars, e.g., Leon Kass, challenged this dogma. Moreover, the term creationism is sometimes defined not as the time of the creation of the world, but as the creation only of human beings by God,[11] the creation of the universe by God from nothing,[12] etc.

For me, creationism, even in its multitude of different interpretations, has an invariant, and that is God’s presence in the creative process. I will assume that the term creationism is associated with the idea of creation as an evolving process.


 I will also use the concept of young earth creationism, because it is associated with the version of creation expressed in the Torah and because it allows me to speculate about some essential methods of creation.

It is a common view that creationistic and evolutionist approaches are opposites and that creationism cannot be proven scientifically.[13] However, along with their marked differences, these two approaches do have some common features.[14] Both of them assume that the Universe evolved in a protracted multistage process. Whereas the Torah assumes a discrete process, that is, the creation of the world in several days, evolutionists usually assume a continuous process. However, even evolutionists assume discreteness, like N. Elridge and Steven Gould (1972) do in their concept of punctuated equilibrium. Some may argue that the hidden assumption in punctuated equilibrium is that changes are continuous, because major changes occur via the accumulation of minor changes.

Envisioning creation as a discrete process with sudden changes is closer to the structure of creation as it is presented in the Torah.  Even if the Torah assumes that each stage lasted only one day, it does not discredit the multistage discrete process of creation. Moreover, some Talmudic scholars, both ancient and contemporary, recognize a day as a phase (period) in the creation of the universe. A good description of this problem could be found by the reader in the book by Nathan Aviezer (1990).[15]     

Before I start to analyze the commonalities between the approaches of evolutionists and creationists to the development of the universe, I want to make a digression into these two approaches. This digression concerns the differences between the mode of representation of a process and the “mechanisms” behind this process.



There is widespread confusion about the mode of a system’s presentation (which is a mathematical model in its most rigorous shape) and the mechanisms involved in its performance. The history of science is full of confusions like this one, which have often been accompanied by severe struggles. I will now bring out a few examples to clarify this statement.

The following situation occurred in the eighteenth century in physics after the appearance of the extremal principle that was offered by Pierre Maupertuis (1698-1759).

This situation was very well described in a book by Lev Polak (1960). The proponents of equilibrium models, models which were previously offered by Isaac Newton (1643-1727), thought they were describing a world of cause and effect with no God. The advocates of the extremal principle insisted that God had created a complete world, corresponding to a particular optimality criterion: that of the least action.

If one takes into account that, in those times, there was no separation of church and state in Europe, this kind of ideological interpretation of the world was not considered to be an innocuous one for scientists who were atheists. It took a long time before Leonard Euler (1707-1783) understood the connection between these two approaches to the study of the physical world. When he explained them as mathematically different modes of presentation of the same problem, the conflict subsided. The separation of church and state had ultimately translated the discussion about the multitude of modes for representing the physical world to the realm of scientific thought.

However, even to this day, some professors in Catholic universities maintain a heightened interest in extremal principles of mechanics.

Moreover, the Catholic Church has exhibited an interest in the application of this principle to other fields and to the representation of economic systems. Evidence of this interest is a two-volume set devoted to a scientific conference on economic problems that was held in Rome from December 7th to the 13th, 1963 by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (Study Week…, 1965). An array of the most visible economists from various countries participated in this conference, and all of them were involved in the problem of state control of the economy in one way or another. Even the Holy Father himself appeared before the gathering and presented a speech.

The mode of representation of an economic system also interacts with ideology. The influence of ideology on the mode of representation of an economic system is felt first and foremost in the defense or repudiation of centralized control. The ideological dilemma is whether to have a free market or state control over the economy. When they represent their system in strict terms, proponents of centralized control prefer a global optimization model, while market advocates prefer local models (e.g., so-called Pareto optimality model) where many participants, using prices, exchange between them the products of their activities in a way that maximize the utility function of each participant under some general constraints (e.g., inadmissibility of augmenting an individual utility function by lowering the utility function of even one other  participant.) 

The development in the 1960s of mathematical economics in the Soviet Union proceeded principally upon the basis of global optimization models. These models were perceived by the powers that be as being appropriate for a planned socialist economy and as corresponding to a Marxist‑Leninist worldview.  Because Western economics for a long time had predominantly used local optimization models, Soviet ideologists were convinced that these models were appropriate for a market economy and were a product of bourgeois ideology.

It has been proven by Gerard Debreu that, under very reasonable conditions, a Pareto optimality model could be converted to a global optimization problem, but this conversion is irrelevant to the mechanism of performance of an economic system. Paul Samuelson, a Nobel Price economist, has interpreted the market mechanism as an optimizer of the economy as a whole (Samuelson, 2001).     

In light of the aforementioned cases in physics and economics, I can conclude that the role of ideology in forming representations of a system is quite conflicted. On the one hand, ideology is the breeding ground for various kinds of heuristic notions that aid in forming a variety of different modes of representation. Ideology allows the scholar to concentrate on a particular approach and sufficiently penetrate the essence of a given mode of representation. Two centuries before, Maupertuis's religious ideas inspired him to formulate the extremal principle in mechanics. Profound faith in an ideology of centrally-planned economics helped Kantorovich develop the concept of optimal planning while he was an active Communist Youngster League member in the late 1930s, a concept for which he won the Nobel Prize in 1975.[16]

On the other hand, ideology can also act as blinders on the eyes of a researcher. Instead of seeing the commonality between various modes of representation and combining them in order to deepen his understanding of his chosen approach, the ideological dedication of a scholar can push him to resist certain concepts. The ideological struggle that results is probably not the best crucible for scientific progress.

When scientists are able to understand various modes of representation and see where they should be utilized, there is less ideological stratification and infighting between them, but infighting does not occur simply because certain people want to install their mode of representation as the only one. In fact, a more complicated struggle is fought over the proportion of different modes that should be used. Once new modes appear, there is a drive to limit the number of methods that continue to be used. In this instance, those scientists who are adherents of a particular mode of representation have to agree to a redistribution of resources over all sectors and even to a reduction of the resources that are allocated to develop their themes.

Returning to our main discussion, the development of the world is distinguished by two different modes of representation: evolutionist and creationist.  Certainly, even the abovementioned relations between the two modes of presentation of a system are accepted, this does not eliminate an ideological tension between the two versions of development of the universe, but it may assuage them. The message of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences concerning the relationship between Revelation and theories of evolution (1997d),[17] even though it concerns only life and not the whole process of creation of the world, can help to reduce the tensions between the Darwinians and those who believe in God’s creation, at least for the members of one of the greatest branches of Christianity, the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II strongly emphasizes in his presentation the necessity for the Church to be acquainted with scientific progress, especially in fields concerning the origin of life and its evolution. He mentions that Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical Humani generis (1950) had already stated,

 [T]here was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led us to realize that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.  It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge.  The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of works that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

So, an analysis of the process of the development of the world by a creator could be treated simply as a mode of representation of that process. Such an approach allows for the interpretation of the evolutionary process as having been accomplished using the methods of creation of a rational creator. Furthermore, this approach allows one to see the stages of the creation of the universe as they are represented in the Torah in a new light: as predispositions for development. I will discuss this in detail later.



The question is "Who is God“? and the answer to this question has an enormous number of versions.[18] As Neil Gillman (2000) mentioned,

To answer the question "Who is God“? is to study the twists and turns of the complex metaphorical system that Jews have used to try to make sense of the world and their lives, as this system winds its way through the generations. (p.16)

For me the general approach to God by Mordecai Kaplan (1962) is convincing:

It is sufficient that God should mean to us the sum of the animating, organizing forces and relationships, which are forever making a cosmos out of chaos. This is what we understand by God as the creative life of the universe. (p.76)

My more detailed presentation of God is to great extent similar to the characteristics of God set forth in Process Theology.[19]

 I have also added something new to these characteristics, as was mentioned in the Introduction. Anyway, one definite conclusion that we can reach from reading the Torah is that the universe aspires toward development, not idleness, nor even maintaining the status quo. The idea that the universe is evolving immediately brings us to thoughts about what forces drive the evolvement. All religions, in one way or another, treat God or gods as these driving forces. Pantheism is a very interesting version of these forces, because it allows for the existence of internal mechanisms of change in each object.[20] God, as the creator of the world and as a participant in the workings of the life on earth, is the leitmotiv of the Torah.

God as the Creator

V. Ulea devoted many pages in her fairytale story (2003) to the characteristic of a creator versus a wizard. She distinguishes them from the point of view of the duration of the process of the development of an object: The creator does it in a prolonged way, while a wizard does it instantly. Her analysis is so original that I decided to provide in endnotes the a long excerpt from her story, and I do hope that it will reward the reader.[21] The distinction between a creator and a wizard from the point of view of the instancy of creation offered by V. Ulea brings an interesting hint to the answer to one of the questions formulated in the set of 17 questions: “Why didn't God create the universe instantly, why does it take Him six days”? As soon as we deal with a creative process fulfilled by a creator it has to be prolonged, by definition, it could not be done instantly.[22]

Allow me to provide a short quotation from a booklet by Griffin & Deegan (1987) that raises a similar question, but with the usage of the words all at once.

[I]f God is all-wise and all-powered, God would have been able to create the world in its present form all at once, just as the creationist says. Why would God take fifteen or twenty billion years to do what could have been done in a week? Theists generally suppose that human beings are the only species with any real value, and that the rest of the universe was created as a stage for the divine‑human drama. Why would God take so long to get to the main act? Even theists who are not so anthropocentric assume that a world with human and other complex forms of life contains much more value than a world with no life, or only simple forms of life. If God is interested in promoting value, why did God take so long to bring forth the more complex forms of life, instead of creating them at the beginning? The facts suggest that the force that created our world was not all‑wise, in fact that it is not wise at all, but an unconscious, blind force which works by random trial and error in accordance with the basic laws of the universe. (pp. 13-14)    

The simplistic answer to the question under discussion is the following: God did not create the world instantly because he was either not almighty enough or not wise enough, and as a result, he did it randomly by trial and error. Such an answer reflects the common dichotomy that is present in methods of creation based on extremes: either they are fully complete and consistent, or they are random. It seems to me that there is a whole spectrum of methods between these two extremes. One of them is the creation of predispositions as stages with certain evaluations and directions for development; this will be discussed later.  In the part "Let there be!" of Nahum Sarna's book (1966), he also expresses the idea that God is not magic:

It has been maintained that this notion of the creative power of the word is known to us from elsewhere in the ancient Near East. But the similarity is wholly superficial, for wherever it is found it has a magical content. The pronouncement of the right word, like the performance of the right magical actions, is able to, or rather, inevitably must, actualize the potentialities which are inherent in the inert matter. In other words, it implies a mystic bond uniting matter to its manipulator. Worlds apart is the Genesis concept of creation by divine fiat. Notice how the Bible passes over in absolute silence the nature of the matter—if any—upon which the divine word acted creatively. Its presence or absence is of no importance, for there is no tie between it and God. "Let there be!" or, as the Psalmist echoed it, "He spoke and it was so," refers not to the utterance of the magic word, but to the expression of the omnipotent, sovereign, unchallengeable will of the absolute, transcendent God to whom all nature is completely subservient. Such a concept of God and of the process of creation added a new dimension to human thought and marked a new stage in the history of religion. It emancipated the mind from the limitations of mythopoetic thinking, and it liberated religion from the baneful influence of magic. (p.12)

God as an Evolving Entity

The widespread opinion concerning the major attributes of God assumes that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. I share the major idea of Process Theology that God is an evolving entity.  Upon the metaphysical principle of an incomplete and inconsistent universe there is an ongoing process of development during which God continues to evolve on the basis of experience of running the world.[23] This approach does not exclude the possibility of a locally perfect world, i.e. the possibility of there being completeness and consistency in some parts of the world and the possibility of God being an absolute for a while. So, I acknowledge the value of the opposite metaphysical concept that holds that the world created by God is complete. Specifically, I have in mind the form of this concept that Gottfried Leibnitz once proposed. Any scholar who works within the metaphysical framework that the universe is complete strives to reveal the perfection that is suggested by his hypothesis. This concept has led a number of scientists, those who are also theologians, to develop rather creative physical theories. As I have previously mentioned, a case in point is the mechanics of the motion of the planets that was worked out by the great French scientist Pierre Maupertuis. He held that the celestial world created by God is perfect, and he assumed that God as an absolute was guided by the criterion of optimality based on the principle of least action. Subsequent mathematical development of this “theophysical” optimization concept have had a profound impact upon the discovery of the extremal principle of variational mechanics (see K. Polak, 1951). Still, I will assume for the sake of this discussion that the basic metaphysic guiding the authors of the Torah is rooted in the concept of the ongoing creation of an incomplete world by an evolving creator.

God As a Complex Entity That Combines Rational Thinking With Feelings 

One can learn from the article “Anthropomorphism” in the Jewish Encyclopedia that there have been many discussions throughout the history of Judaism about the anthropomorphic features that are inherent in God, particularly God’s feelings. Some Jewish authorities accept the idea that God experiences emotions like Man does; others reject it. I will leave out the analysis of these discussions and concentrate only on my opinion of this problem. It is based on my paper that was written in collaboration with Dan Giacomo and Mona Weissmark (1986). I understand feelings as a general systems phenomenon that can, in the broad sense, be associated with a self-acting object. Feelings are values, i.e., attractors. (A. Katsenelinboigen, 1974) Their function is to drive an object a certain distance in a certain way. They are located in the informational counter of an object.

The following features could characterize the specifics of these attractors:

They are a condensed expression of the value of the characteristics of an object, i.e., they have a specific orientation to external and internal actions and objects. They are individual, i.e., they belong to a given object.  They are fixed, or at least change very slowly, because they are adjusted to a certain environment (external and internal). They are located in specialized cells of an object. They are meant to be  used mainly for individual, separate events.

The structure of feelings is represented by biological drives, vibrations, and emotions that are correspondingly related to the value of the basic needs of an object, to the order of its internal structure, and to relations with other objects. The term vibrations that is used in this case is a generalization of the term pain, and I explain in the following endnote the meaning of this generalization.[24]

The substrate of feelings can be very different in different kinds of objects. Feelings could be based on living cells in living systems; they could be inorganic cells in artificial objects like computers; or they could have an unknown substance in God. Such features of feelings allow an object to make decisions comparatively faster than so-called rational decisions that require the involvement and coordination of many events. At the same time, these same features limit the effectiveness of feelings when the environment is undergoing rapid change, because in this case, rational thinking develops new values that are appropriate for the changed environment, or when necessary, rational thinking corrects the values that are spontaneously formed by feelings.

So, in order to make effective decisions, a complex self-acting object makes an amalgamation of feelings and rational thinking.

In accordance with the Torah, God does not explicitly express his feelings in the process of creating the world. The evaluations of everyday results using the term "good" can be treated as an implicit combination of rational thoughts and feelings. During the process of the performance of the world, God does not make decisions based only on pure rational evaluations; God also makes decisions based on different feelings, for example smell, which is analogous to biological drives, and anger, which is analogous to emotions. 

God as an Asexual Entity

 Rabbi Neil Gillman in his book (2000) devoted a whole section to the discussion concerning the gender of God (pp.83-86.) The well-accepted theological opinion concerning the gender of God literary follows the text of the Torah, i.e., God is of the masculine gender. The Process Theology assumes:

the positive aspects of these "masculine" attributes can be retained, without their destructive implications, if they are incorporated into a revolutionized concept of God into which the stereotypically feminine traits are integrated. For, in the integrate result, the former traits are changed qualitatively. (Cobb&Griffin, 1976, pp. 61-62) [25]

This understanding of the gender of God has gained currency due to the feminist movement. There is a huge literature devoted to this subject. Of special note is the book by Judith Plascow (1990.)

 It seems to me however that arguing about the gender God is pointless. As I pointed out in my book (1997b), the evolutionary process as a process in which increasing complexity of living beings takes place, is accompanied by an increasing complexity of methods of reproduction. The simple living beings have only somatic cells multiplied by fragmentation. A great step in evolution happened with the appearance of living beings that contain a specialized reproductive cell – a spore. The next great step in evolution was accompanied by the division of the reproductive cell on two sexes – eggs and sperm with corresponding different functions. Meanwhile both kind of reproductive cells have been in one body where self-fertilization occurred. This type of living beings is a full hermaphrodite (e.g., an African Snail.)


Further appear specialized body holders, male and female, that correspondingly involve eggs and sperms along with other features that accompany a reproductive process.[26] The psychological differences in males and females are correlated with their roles in the process of reproduction in a broad sense of this word, including participation in the upbringing of the newborn.

So, the emergence of genders is a result of increased sophistication of reproductive methods. If God is not a reproducible entity and multiplication is foreign to God, any kinds of terms that relate to gender are not applicable to God.

Now we are prepared to discuss in more detail the ways of creation and development of the universe and their representation in the Torah.


    [5]. I want to make a minor comment on this quotation. To the best of my knowledge, in the same years that Isaac Lapidus developed the aforementioned ideas, a Russian scholar Arkadii Zhabin (1980) was also involved in the elaboration of the concept of the evolution of minerals. I could not compare the works of these two scholars. I only want to call attention to the involvement of other scholars in such innovative thinking as evolution of the inorganic world.

    [6]. Daniel Fuller (1992) comments on the insertion of the these three verses in different chapters:

    The present chapter divisions for both the Old Testament and the New Testament were not decided upon until 1205. At that time Stephen Langton, a professor in Paris engaged in editing a Latin version of the Bible, introduced them to make it easier for people to locate a passage. In 1330 his system was then adopted by the Jews for a new hand-copied manuscript of the Hebrew Old Testament, and in 1516 these same chapter divisions were used in the first Hebrew Bible printed. The verse divisions in the Old Testament had been inserted much earlier (c. a.d. 200), to make it easier for a scholar reading the Hebrew text in a synagogue to know where to stop so that the sentence just read could then be translated into Aramaic, the spoken language of the Jews since their return from exile in Babylon six centuries earlier. (pp. 102-103)

    [7].  An analogous view is expressed by Robert Sacks (1979), who as a matter of fact, stimulated the aforementioned opinion by Leon Kass (see Kass, 1988, p.39):

    We are now about to begin a second account of Creation. As we shall see, these two accounts differ in fundamental ways. In many ways they simply contradict each other. These two accounts are of prime importance for modern Biblical scholarship. Modern scholars understand Genesis to be the weaving together of several earlier accounts, and they understand it to be their task to unravel them. (p. 48)

    [8].  See, for example, Nahum Sarna’s (1996) opinion on the uniqueness of the biblical vision of the development of the universe:

    The Hebrew cosmology represents a revolutionary break with the contemporary world, a parting of the spiritual ways that involved the undermining of the entire prevailing mythological world-view. These new ideas of Israel transcended, by far, the range of the religious concepts of the ancient world. The presence of this or that biblical motif or institution in non-Israelite cultures in no wise detracts from its importance, originality and relevance. The germ of the monotheistic idea may, indeed, be found outside of Israel; but nowhere has monotheism ever been found historically as an outgrowth or development of polytheism. Nowhere else in the contemporary world did it become the regnant idea, obsessive and historically significant. Israel's monotheism constituted a new creation, a revolution in religion, a sudden transformation. The same observation applies to the phenomenon of apostolic prophecy, of the prophet on a mission, now known to have existed in the ancient town of Mari. Did the latter play any role in the reshaping of society? Did this episode, like Israelite prophecy, leave an indelible mark on human thinking, behavior and institutions? To raise these questions is to point up the extent to which the Near Eastern parallels project Israel's originality in ever sharper focus. (p.xxviii)

    [9]. Since issues in the origin of life are not religiously or methodologically neutral (for one's views on this question have profound implications for one's entire worldview), the theistic evolutionary compromise is religiously dangerous, or so say many special creationists. (Moreland & Reynolds, 1999, p.15)

    [10]. Ernst Mayr mentions in his book (1982):

    The attitude toward species changed drastically after the Reformation. The fixity and complete constancy of species now became a firm dogma. A literal interpretation of Genesis required the belief in the individual creation of every species of plants and animals on the days prior to Adam's creation. The species, thus, was the unit of creation. (p. 255)

    Mayr shows how this firm dogma for a long time influenced scholars from different fields of biology (e.g., the famous botanist Carl Linnaenus) not to accept an evolutionary vision of the creation of living beings that assumes changes in the set of species that appear in the Torah.

    [11]. As the Encyclopedia Britannica mentions,

    Creationism is also called Creation Science, or Scientific Creationism, counterevolutionary, fundamentalist theory or doctrine that postulates that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing. Creationism grew as a result of the advancement of evolution that was evident after the publication in 1859 of Darwin's Origin of Species.

    [12]. As The Harper Collins Dictionary of Religion (1995) mentions:

    [C]reationism [is] an American movement teaching that humanity was created by a discrete act ─ implicitly or explicitly divine ─ and did not evolve from other forms of animal life.

    [13].But most people tend to see the first chapters of Genesis and the theory of evolution as irreconcilable. On one side, we have scientists and philosophers of science who hold that the teaching of evolution has made "plumb unbelievable" the teachings of the book of Genesis especially about the special status of man: "[I]t is obviously impossible to square any evolutionary account of the origin of species with a substantially literal reading of the first chapters of Genesis." On the other side, we have Protestant fundamentalists, who, taking the same view of the challenge, declare the teachings of evolution to be false. No longer content just citing chapter and verse, some of them would like to prove it scientifically. In recent decades, they have given birth to a new movement, so-called "creation science" or "scientific creationism," which aims both to embarrass and refute the theory of evolution and to find scientific evidence supporting the account of the origins of the world, life, and man provided by their own particular reading of Scripture. I should say straight out that I reject the enterprise of "creation science." There is simply no way scientifically to gather the kind of evidence wanted, and the quality of reasoning in the few publications I have seen is appalling. True, certain discoveries may yet raise difficulties for the orthodox theory of the how of evolution, inducing much-needed modesty and open-mindedness among the high priests of science. But such difficulties could hardly challenge the basic fact that evolution has occurred, much less constitute evidence for special creation less than 6,000 years ago. If the Bible is to be harmonized with scientific findings, creation science is not the way. (Kass, 1988, p.29-30)

    [14]To recapitulate: creation, according to Genesis 1, is the bringing of order out of primordial chaos, largely through a process of progressive separation, division, distinction, differentiation. If there is to be a world, there must be articulated and distinguishable beings; if there are to be living beings, capable of self-perpetuation, each individual must belong to a kind or species that by and large breeds true, i.e., after its kind. (Of this, more soon.) At this level of generality, the biblical account is perfectly compatible with the fact of a slowly evolving cosmos, with life arriving late, beginning in the sea and only later emerging on earth, progressively distinguished into a variety of separated kinds. Further, since the separations, actually made or appearing in the world, were all beforehand makeable, one might even conclude that the biblical creatures—or at least the broadly possible kinds of creatures—were present potentially in the world, even before they were called forth into being (that is, created). With this addition, one sees how one might find in Genesis 1 a doctrine of evolving or unfolding creation, or, conversely, how certain evolutionary accounts of the emergence of living forms are compatible with the Bible's account of a graded and sequential unfolding of the cosmos, through progressive acts of separating out implicit or at least latent possibilities. True, evolution through the unfolding of latent possibilities is not the same as evolution through the natural selection of accidental variations—it is more Lamarckian than Darwinian. But leaving aside such questions of mechanism, "creation" and "evolution" might be perfectly compatible, at least in principle; everything depends on what is meant by each notion. I do not yet fully understand these notions; and I rather suspect that evolution solely by natural selection—orthodox Darwinism—cannot be simply squared with the biblical account. But if the question is to remain open for further reflection, we need to challenge some common assumptions that usually lead people to see evolution and creation simply as opposed. First, evolutionists deny the primacy and even the intelligibility of natural kinds or species. Some of them ridicule as "typological" or "essentialist" thinking the focus on natural species, characteristic not only of Genesis 1, but also of common human experience. Evolutionary theory, like natural science in general, shares the Bible's teaching regarding the intelligibility of the cosmos, but the intelligibility it seeks comes in the form of universal laws of natural change, rather than the specific forms of the separable natural beings. Indeed, the whole point of Darwin's researches was to discover the natural processes by which new species emerge from preexisting species, through decent and modification. (Kass, 1988, p.37-38)

    [15]. As a matter of fact, the version of the creation of the world that is accepted by the Koran is analogous to the Torah. Some translations of the Koran into English repeat the part about the six days of creation. "It is He that created the heavens and the earth in six days." (Quoted from Eliade, 1974) This same phrase with a slightly changed sequence of the words in the beginning of the sentence is used in the translation of the Koran that was put out on the Internet under the address http://quran/al-islam.com.

    Meanwhile, in some other translations of the Koran the same surah and verse 57:4 is translated differently: the word day is replaced by the word period. For example, in one translation (Koran, 1983) it says

    He it is who created the heavens and the earth in six periods.

    [16]. In spite of being devoted to socialism, Leonid V. Kantorovich had great trouble with the introduction of his concept. His book (1959) that was written in 1942 waited 17 years for publication. A couple of times during this period, he was on the eve of arrest for his attempts to apply his concept.  The ideological reason for such a delay was the following: Soviet Marxists characterize a socialist economy at least by two major conditions.  First, it should be a planned economy.  Second, its performance should be based on the labor theory of value. Kantorovich satisfied the first condition. Meanwhile, he implicitly shares the Western marginal utility theory for the formation of the prices. Later, Kantorovich tried to prove that the prices offered by him are in accordance with the labor theory of value,  but these were tricks.  (See more in the Chapter “Nobel and Lenin Prize Laureate L.V. Kantorovich: The Political Dilemma in Scientific Creativity” in my book 1990.)

    [17]. Pope John Paul II in his message wisely emphasized on the role of the plurality in theories of evolution. He said,

    And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.  On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based.  Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations.

    [18]. Russell Ackoff, known in his youth for his leftist views, later required a clearance in the beginning of the fifties. The Joseph McCarthy committee invited him for a hearing. He was asked by a procurator: “Do you believe in God“? Ackoff replied: “Please, give me a definition of god, and I will answer.” Silence!

    [19]. The following long quotation from the book by John Cobbs and David Griffin  (1976), two leading scholars in the field of Process Theology, will very well familiarize a reader with the presentation of God in this field. Process theology speaks about God. Whitehead and Hartshome have both used the word "God" frequently and without embarrassment. However, they have been conscious that what they have meant by the term is philosophically and religiously opposed to much that has been meant by "God" in metaphysical, theological, and popular traditions. Their use of the conventional word for unconventional purposes continues to offend many theists and atheists alike. We follow them in their usage; and we hope that the explanations in the book will show why we do so and that this practice is justified. But to make clear that many of the common connotations of the word do not fit with our meaning, we single out five in advance for rejection. Anyone who supposes that these are essential to the meaning of the word "God" will then be fore-warned that we speak of a different reality. (The contrasting doctrines of process theology are explained in Chapter 3.) 1. God as Cosmic Moralist. At its worst this notion takes the form of the image of God as divine lawgiver and judge, who has proclaimed an arbitrary set of moral rules, who keeps records of offenses, and who will punish offenders. In its more enlightened versions, the suggestion is retained that God's most fundamental concern is the development of moral attitudes. This makes primary for God what is secondary for humane people, and limits the scope of intrinsic importance to human beings as the only beings capable of moral attitudes. Process theology denies the existence of this God. 2. God as the Unchanging and Passionless Absolute. This concept derives from the Greeks, who maintained that "perfection" entailed complete "immutability," or lack of change. The notion of "impassibility" stressed that deity must be completely unaf-fected by any other reality and must lack all passion or emotional response. The notion that deity is the "Absolute" has meant that God is not really related to the world. The world is really relate to God, in that the relation to God is constitutive of the world—an adequate description of the world requires reference to its dependence on God—but even the fact that there is a world is not constitutive of the reality of God. God is wholly independent of the world: the God-world relation is purely external to God. These three terms—unchangeable, passionless, and absolute—finally say the same thing, that the world contributes nothing to God, and that God's influence upon the world is in no way conditioned by divine responsiveness to unforeseen, self-determining activities of usworldly beings. Process theology denies the existence of this God. 3. God as Controlling Power. This notion suggests that God determines every detail of the world. When a loved one dies prematurely, the question "Why”? is often asked instinctively, meaning "Why did God choose to take this life at this time”? Also, whenhumanly destructive natural events such as hurricanes occur, legal jargon speaks of "acts of God."On the positive side, a woman may thank God for the rescue of her husband from a collapsed coal mine, while the husbands of a dozen other women are lost. But what kind of a God would this be who spares one while allowing the others to perish? Process theology denies the existence of this God. 4. God as Sanctioner of the Status Quo. This connotation characterizes a strong tendency in all religions. It is supported by the three previous notions. The notion of God as Cosmic Moralist has suggested that God is primarily interested in order- The notion of God as Unchangeable Absolute has suggested God's establishment of an unchangeable order for the world- And the notion of God as Controlling Power has suggested that the present order exists because God wills its existence. In that case, to be obedient to God is to preserve the status quo. Process theology denies the existence of this God. 5. God as Male. The liberation movement among women hasmade us painfully aware how images of deity have been deeply our sexually one-sided. Not only have we regarded all three "persons" of the Trinity as male, but the tradition has reinforced these images with theological doctrines such as those noted above. God is totally active, controlling, and independent, and wholly lacking in receptiveness and responsiveness. Indeed, God seems to be the archetype of the dominant, inflexible, unemotional, completely independent (read "strong") male. Process theology denies the existence of this God.  (pp. 8-10)

    [20]. Pantheism, in the mind of Charles Hartshorne (1948, p.89-90) has to be distinguished from panentheistism that assumes that God also exist independently.

    [21]“Is Isebute a country of powerful creators”? “No, not only. Isebute is about diversity. Different types of creators live there – powerful and less powerful. Diversity is its strength. It makes this country rich and powerful.” “Are all creators young”? “No, they are of different ages, but all of them posses a youthful mind.” “A youthful mind”? “Yes. This is the main condition for the creator. Only a youthful mind can produce fantasy, see novelty, and be open to changes…” “But how does a creator create”? Betsy asked. “What kind of force assists a creator in realizing his intent? Is it magic”? “Magic? Oh, no, no!” Mr. Gravio suddenly became very agitated. “You cannot, should not, and must not compare a creator to a wizard!  Wizards are fiction, soap bubbles, a fabrication, an invention of an idle mind!” Mr. Gravio became so angry that the air around him reached a feverish pitch. Betsy noticed some cracks on the woody furniture. “Please, please calm down,” she begged. “I agree with everything you’ve said. They don’t exist, they don’t!” “Well, they do exist,” Mr. Gravio suddenly blurted out and became calm. “But they are no more significant than magicians in a circus.” “How come”?  Betsy asked with precaution. “Simply because all their magic is nothing but trickery. And why is it so? Because magic never reaches the core of the phenomena. Magic forces cannot produce anything that will last. That which appears as a result of magic cannot develop. Nor can it generate new things.” “Really? But what forces then are responsible for real creation“? “Divine ones. Yes! Creators appeal only to divine forces.” Mr. Gravio looked at Betsy to make sure that she understood. Betsy nodded at him, letting him know that she followed him, and he continued. “Creators, therefore, deal with depths. They interact with the essence. Wizards, on the contrary, touch the surface. They produce illusions, imitations.” “And how do they do that”? “By drugging livitta.” “Livitta? What’s that”? “Oh, this is the soul the world – the living matter from which the entire universe had been created.” “And the wizards destroy it? How come”? “Well, numerous magic devices have been elaborated, such as spells, incantations, exorcism, and the like. With the help of them, wizards enchant livitta and it hallucinates, thus producing ill, weak fantasy that doesn’t last - like Cinderella’s dress. But this short term manipulation may cause long-term harm.” “Are you saying that all types of magic are dangerous”? “Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Unlike magic transformations that are done in the blink of an eye, the process of creation requires time. Yes, Betsy, it takes time until the imaginable becomes a real part of this world. It’s impossible to create anything in a second because all things in the world are connected, and any new entity should establish relationships with others in order to keep the universe in balance. For that, time is required. Therefore anything that is created instantly doesn’t last. Wizards are producers of momentary things, and they are harmful, even the good ones.” “Even the good ones? But I’ve always thought…” “You were deluded. It wasn’t your fault, though, because like many other people you were not aware of the truth.” “What truth”? “The truth about the harmful nature of magic. Yes, any magic is harmful because it produces something that has no connection with the rest of the world, something that will eventually vanish as a smock. The wizards, however, don’t think this way. They are preoccupied with their momentary goals, unable to see the larger picture. Therefore, they don’t really care what damage could be done to livitta as a result of their momentary victories.” “But what happens with the living matter”? “Oh, each time they proceed, it becomes ill and exhausted like soil that has too many chemicals in it. After a while it loses its creative potential and becomes numb and not responsive. Then the wizards abandon it and find another spot.”

    The Curse of Being a Wizard

     “Magic – whether it’s black or white – is bad. It gradually destroys you,” Mr. Gravio continued. “In the beginning it looks very exiting. It seems that you have power over the world. Alas! The feeling doesn’t last long. As soon as a freshman wizard learns all possible tricks, he gets bored. He feverishly searches for an audience in front of which he may perform, but it’s not easy because the world is flooded with all sorts of wizards and there is a great struggle for a client. Besides, not everyone would agree to deal with a wizard – most people want to rely on their own ability and skills.” “Really? I thought that people would love to use magic to make their dreams come true. Isn’t it the most desirable thing in the world, to achieve your goal”? “No, the most desirable thing in the world is to keep developing. Development preserves one from stagnation and boredom. Only the immature mind would crave immediate achievements.” “Then wizards must feel lonely for the most part of their life.” “Sure they do. Unlike creators, they always require spectators. Even a single spectator would do. Indeed, have you ever heard of a wizard that would stay aloof and perform his magic only in front of himself”? Betsy laughed. She suddenly pictured such a wizard who entertained himself day and night. “No, I’ve never heard of such a thing,” she said.  “Of course you haven’t, because wizards are not self-sufficient, and this is their biggest problem. Life for them is like the action movie – full of external struggle, intrigues, and conflicts. But put them alone in a silent room and let the autumn look through its windows, and they would be the poorest creatures in the entire universe. Silence and meditation don’t work for those who require action. By the way, creators call all types of wizards turners.” “It sounds very ironic,” Betsy noticed. “Sure it does! Creators have a different life style. They are self-contained and independent” “Yes, I know,” Betsy said, remembering hours that she spent alone over the counter. “Most importantly,” Mr. Gravio continued, “all turners are cursed: the living matter placed the curse of certainty on them.” “The curse of certainty? What is that”? “Oh, this is the worst torture one can only imagine! Turners are not allowed to explore the unknown. Their final goals are determined – they know in the beginning what their manipulations will bring them. Turners must know three things before they start their magic: the end, the means, and the rules. Without it, no turner would ever begin his magic. Compare this to a creator who may only have a very general idea about his creation if at all.” “Really? Don’t the creators know about what they will have in the end”? “Never. And this is the danger and the beauty of any creation. Creators may know only what they want to achieve, but never what they will achieve.” “How do turners learn to become turners”? “Oh, there are numerous schools and books that teach witchcraft, black magic, and the like!” “Are there similar schools for creators”? “No, there aren’t. Creators go to a regular school and learn regular things. There is no such school that can teach one how to become a creator. Take for example writers, or artists. They study what everyone does. There are a lot of people who know how to write or draw well. Some of them are even graduated from the school of arts. Not all of the students, however, will become artists!” “Very interesting… I’m just curious, are there any other types except for creators and turners”?  “Yes, of course. Everything in between, we call ‘makers.’ Makers have no special power that would allow them to become turners or creators, but they have good learning skills and can do any job as long as it doesn’t require some subjective qualities. For example, they cannot turn one thing into another because, in addition to knowing the rule, one should also posses a special power of influencing livitta.” “I’ve learned so many interesting things today!” Betsy exclaimed. “In our town you wouldn’t learn anything like this…”

    [22]. I would like to make some minor comments about this question. The usual formulation of this question includes the words all at once instead of instantly. Meanwhile, the words all at once could be used for such a short time as the six days of creation, and these words assume a protracted process. My desire to emphasize the pure opposite of a protracted process leads me to use the word instantly.

    [23] As has been deeply probed by Charles Hartshorne (1984), a leading figure in process theology, the idea of an evolving God does not contradict the statement that God is perfect.

    [24]. Vibrations are responsible for the transmission of information about the degree of order that is present in the structure of an object.

    The name vibration is due to the commonality that exists in their generation mechanisms. Vibrations are produced by the periodic discharge of receptors that are responsible for irregular changes in the structure of an object.

    Positive and negatives vibrations can be distinguished. Pain is a negative vibration that is generated by an oscillatory process of pain fibers. Positive vibrations are physical sensations that are associated with the soundness or well-being of the structure of an object.

    The positive vibrations could be called daint. This word comes from the Latin dignitas, worthiness. In common usage, daint means something that arouses favor or excites pleasure. The term pain comes from the Latin poena, penalty or payment.

    [25] The authors of the same book on pp. 62, 134-136 have developed this statement. One comment from these pages deserves special attention: 

    The process dipolar notion of deity has some affinity with the Taoist notion of the Tao, in which the "feminine" and "masculine" (yin and yang) dimensions of reality are perfectly integrated. (p.62)

    [26]. The different kinds of hermaphrodites, so well described by Anne Fausto-Sterling (1993), could confirm the hypothesis of gradual conversion of full hermaphrodites to separate sexes.