For an exemplar of Zygon’s foundational aim to explore the “yoking” together of contemporary scientific knowledge and religious and philosophical perspectives, we need look no further than the “created co‐creator” proposal put forward by the journal's former editor, Philip Hefner (editor, 1989–2008).
Coined in the early 1980s, but developed most substantially in The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture, and Religion (1993), the created co‐creator summarizes a theological anthropology that takes evolutionary science seriously. It is Hefner's chosen shorthand to describe humans as gene‐culture symbionts who exercise their creative agency on behalf of the natural world to which they belong.
The created co‐creator has sparked much discussion and debate over the subsequent decades, and this volume edited by Roberts and Turk is a welcome addition to the conversation. Published in the same year as Hefner celebrated his 90th birthday, this volume combines original content by Hefner himself with eight responses by scholars of Hefner's work who take up the call inherent in the notion of “created co‐creator” to engage thoughtfully with science and technology in service of a more wholesome future.
The book is structured in three parts. The first part contains five chapters are written by Hefner sketching out the sociological and theological context that informed his original proposal. The fourth chapter, in providing a strengthened theological framework underpinning the created cocreator, is especially valuable in making explicit what could only be inferred or even speculated from The Human Factor (e.g., the emphasis on cocreation within the context of divine sovereignty rejects progressivism; sin is described with greater reference to scripture than to evolutionary tensions compared with earlier works).
The second part offers two extended response chapters. Jason Roberts brings language from contemporary trinitarian theology to describe the “created co‐creator, redeemer and sustainer” to emphasize the ecological responsibility inherent in the cocreative task. Karl Peters adopts a cosmic perspective, tracing the development of the cocreator in the context of evolution and various historical scientific developments.
The third part is comprised of briefer topical responses written by various colleagues of Hefner. Ted Peters contributes two essays in chapters 8 and 11: the first explores the capacity of the created cocreator to confer meaning and purpose, while the second describes the proleptic common good as that purpose. Anna Case‐Winters offers a defense against a frequent critique of Hefner's model—that it elevates human agency almost on a par with divine creativity. Ann Pederson widens out the image‐bearing dimension of the created co‐creator to take in nonhuman creatures, refreshingly demonstrating that the model can challenge more anthropocentric approaches to creative agency. Greg Peterson fills out some of the caveats surrounding the notion of human freedom upon which the created co‐creator rests, exploring the way in which freedom is conditioned by institutions while offering guidelines for a more just institutional landscape. Mladen Turk concludes on a evaluative note, exploring both the utility and the ambiguity of the “powerful suggestive analogy” (211) that is the created co‐creator.
This volume will be of particular interest to those already familiar with Hefner's work (those unfamiliar would do well to acquaint themselves with The Human Factor at least). Proffering rejoinders, clarifications, and extensions of what has proven an enduring and fruitful metaphor within the field of science and religion for more than three decades, this volume advances the dialogue on what it means to be human in an increasingly technological world.
